In a majority judgment written by Justice Chris Jafta, the court ordered the National Assembly to make rules regulating presidential impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution and to use those rules to determine whether President Jacob Zuma had committed impeachable conduct in failing to comply with a report by the Public Protector.

Arising from the Nkandlagate scandal, the case was politically sensitive, and critics held that the court's order transgressed the separation of powers.

[2][3] The DA was joined as an intervening party, seeking the same relief as the applicants, and the non-profit Corruption Watch was admitted as amicus curiae.

Zondo disagreed with the majority about the requirements of section 89, finding that the identification of a "serious violation of the Constitution" was a value judgment that must be left to individual Members of Parliament rather than subject to institutional pre-determination.

He therefore agreed with the Speaker that existing rules of the National Assembly – such as the recourse to establish ad hoc committees – were sufficient to enable the fulfilment of the legislature's impeachment function under section 89, and that the National Assembly had already fulfilled its obligation to hold Zuma accountable for his conduct in respect of the Nkandla report.

[10] However, several legal commentators gave credence to Mogoeng's view that the majority judgment encroached on the separation of powers,[11] and some openly criticised it as an example of the "judicialisation of politics", relying on a "strained" interpretation of the Constitution.